Site Mobile Navigation

Some Well-Off Tenants Are Aided by Taxpayers

Robert Lipstye's Coping column "Suspicion: The Renters' Story" (June 30) is revealing in ways that perhaps the author never intended. The tenants described in the column moved from a home they owned in Merrick, L.I., to upscale Waterside Plaza on the East River around 25th Street.

Twelve years ago these tenants paid $1,322 per month for a two-bedroom, two-bathroom apartment that came with "good security, convenient shopping, community rooms, discount theater tickets, lavish holiday parties put on by the management." Twelve years later their rent has been raised a whopping $198 -- an annual increase of 1.25 percent. Mr. Lipsyte says, "This is below market value because the complex was built under the Mitchell-Lama laws intended to create affordable housing."

Are these tenants poor? No. He is a retired C.P.A. and she is a retired interior designer. They are clearly upper middle class. We learn from the description of the garage, "where many cars had M.D. plates" that other tenants in this "renters' paradise" are equally well off. So why are taxpayers (many poorer than these tenants) supporting well-off tenants? What makes these particular tenants deserving of a lavish Manhattan life style, at the average taxpayer's expense?

The answer, of course, is politics. Builders (like Richard Ravitch) with ties to politicians get risk-free taxpayer funding. Politicians get a dedicated voting bloc (the lucky tenants) dependent on continued political favors.

The final question is how does one get to be a lucky tenant? Again politics is playing a role.

It's not just the Mitchell-Lama buildings. The city has a number of programs that turn real estate over to the politically favored with no relationship to need.